Bill C-12 (Historical)

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050

This enactment requires that national targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada be set, with the objective of attaining net-zero emissions by 2050. The targets are to be set by the Minister of the Environment for 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.
In order to promote transparency and accountability in relation to meeting those targets, the enactment also
(a) requires that an emissions reduction plan, a progress report and an assessment report with respect to each target be tabled in each House of Parliament;
(b) provides for public participation;
(c) establishes an advisory body to provide the Minister of the Environment with advice with respect to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and matters that are referred to it by the Minister;
(d) requires the Minister of Finance to prepare an annual report respecting key measures that the federal public administration has taken to manage its financial risks and opportunities related to climate change;
(e) requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to, at least once every five years, examine and report on the Government of Canada’s implementation of measures aimed at mitigating climate change; and
(f) provides for a comprehensive review of the Act five years after its coming into force.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, that's very interesting.

Ms. Khan, several organizations, including yours, are in favour of Bill C-12, on condition that some amendments are made.

You say that it's important to take a giant step. I always say that it's more of a leap, because it needs to be done quickly. We are in the middle of a climate emergency right now.

Canada appears to be saying that the reduction of GHG emissions should be in the 40% to 45% range.

Can you tell us what you feel would be the most important measure to add to Bill C-12?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to move to Ms. Paul, if I may.

We've heard quite a number of concerns about the advisory body being formed before Bill C-12 has passed, and I'm a bit confused about that.

There seems to be some hesitation by some sides to act, even on just forming an advisory body when we've already set the 2030 and 2050 targets. To me, it seems that Bill C-12 is codifying in law what we're already trying to do to ensure that the government makes changes and that a new government can't ignore the issue. It has been made very clear by all of you that this is pivotal legislation for this time.

It would make sense to me that we'd establish formal requirements in the advisory body, like reporting requirements in Bill C-12. Isn't it reasonable that we should be formalizing a body into the law now, even if amendments to it might be needed?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

Thank you.

I would say that I'm not in a place to speak for indigenous peoples' communities at this moment.

I would say that Canada has ratified the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I do think those rights have to be upheld in the implementation of Bill C-12.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you for that response, Mr. Fauteux.

Is the current bill enforceable? To what degree can Bill C-12—if we amend and strengthen it—account for some of those factors, the intrinsic factors within our governance structures, that seem to undermine our efforts? How effective is this as an accountability measure?

[Paul Fauteux]

Absolutely. I mentioned earlier that the important thing was independence. If the commissioner were to become an officer of Parliament, it would definitely strengthen that independence.

A little earlier, Ms. Paul mentioned the need to make the advisory body established in Bill C-12 independent, which it is not. At the moment, the minister appoints members, and may determine and amend the terms of reference of, the advisory body.

I agree with what Ms. Joseph said. Industry representatives need to be involved. Some private sector experts have the required expertise, but they can be brought together on an independent committee made up mostly of scientists with input from industry experts.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

That's definitely very interesting.

In March, when you appeared before the committee, it was suggested that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development might become an officer of Parliament. It's not the case now, and there doesn't appear to be the desire to do that. Bill C-12 establishes a role for the commissioner and the advisory body.

You have decades of experience in government. Don't you think there should be a link and collaboration between the commissioner and this body in Bill C-12?

[Geneviève Paul]

There are several reasons why it's urgent to adopt a good bill, including the fact that if the government does nothing to address climate issues, it will be harmful to Canada and all Canadians, and come at a very high price, not to mention the repercussions that our inaction might have internationally. It's therefore up to Canadians and the government to adopt a framework climate law.

What's a good climate framework law? It's one in which we mark out the guidelines needed to arrive at our destination, as we mentioned earlier. What's interesting is that you are consulting numerous experts, whose proposed amendments to Bill C-12 are converging to help us get there.

The repercussions on our fundamental rights are extremely important. You've also heard from experts who agreed on that too. It's not only the greatest threat being faced by humanity, but also, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said, "The world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope." There is no longer any need to demonstrate the urgency of taking action with respect to climate change. It benefits everyone, including the various economic sectors.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand what you're saying. Honestly, I think that every member here, and probably everyone sitting in the House of Commons has a different idea of what would constitute a good bill to combat climate change. That's why we're all here today to hear your opinions. You are experts with different backgrounds, and differing points of view. I believe that it's important for us to listen to what you have to say so that the changes we make to Bill C-12 will make it as good as it can possibly be.

Ms. Paul, people in my riding and from across Canada are watching us on television right now. I have about a minute and a half left. Could you briefly explain why it's urgent to adopt a good bill?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

Ms. Paul, I'll ask you the same question.

Do you oppose the adoption of Bill C-12?

[Paul Fauteux]

I am definitely not against Bill C-12. As I said at the outset, it's a step in the right direction. But I feel, as do others here, that it's inadequate. It's not bad, but it simply needs to be enhanced and improved.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

You touched on some of that regional piece. I hope you can expand a bit on that—about the provincial and territorial roles. I think a major issue with not just this bill but also multiple other pieces of legislation by this government has been the failure to respect other jurisdictions, as well as the introduction of redundant regulations, instead of having that collaborative piece with other provinces.

Is there any part here of Bill C-12 that you would find redundant when it comes to the other provinces and territories?

[Dr. Sabaa Khan]

Thanks.

National legislative approaches to climate policy have become imperative to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. Not only do they have the potential to reflect authoritative and transparent state commitments, but they may also significantly facilitate and accelerate economy-wide decarbonization by providing predictable cross-sectoral regulatory and investment environments.

Canada's climate legislation will not exist in a vacuum. It will form part of an emerging global network of national climate laws, all of which are driven by the common global legal objective to tackle anthropogenic climate change. While no two national climate laws are the same, their frameworks draw on some common key requirements, obligations and procedures.

Our submission to the committee draws on international examples in the area of national climate legislation to inform substantive and procedural amendments to Bill C-12, which would give this draft legislation the specificity, concreteness, transparency and accountability standards necessary to effectively map, monitor and reduce Canada's emissions.

While Bill C-12 in its current form embodies all core elements common to most climate laws, it falls behind international best practice in several respects. We understand that the government's intention is to require science-based targets, but we are concerned that as currently drafted, Bill C-12 leaves open the door to sidestep IPCC science and recommendations. In establishing targets and crafting mandatory climate plans, an independent scientific body is mandated to play an advisory role. However, under the current provisions, this body's composition, resources, capacity and functions remain loosely described.

A robust Canadian climate law could trigger the rapid collective transformation that is needed within the public and private sectors to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, strengthen adaptation efforts, and enhance resilience across the country. Climate legislation should foster greater public transparency, ensure government accountability, and provide a clear, quantifiable and practical vision of how Canada intends to reduce economy-wide GHG emissions.

A robust legal framework for climate change can guarantee a leading role for independent science in determining Canada's climate ambition and ensure that this ambition never regresses. It can also ensure that Canada's plans of action to achieve periodical emissions reductions targets on the path to net zero do not deviate from the latest scientific recommendations of the IPCC.

Some climate laws go so far as to call for the explicit alignment between federal budget policy and climate policy, assign emissions reduction obligations for certain sectors to specific ministries, and even mandate the government to produce a global climate strategy related to imported goods, bilateral co-operation, and international climate finance. In the best cases, climate laws mandate independent scientific bodies to play a strong role in advising and monitoring government actions on climate change, and oblige the government to respond publicly to their advice, recommendations and reports. These mechanisms ensure that climate policy-making is not led by electoral cycles, but by the long-term objective of net-zero emissions by 2050.

We have before us today an opportunity to ensure the passing of robust climate legislation, which would propel us securely and collectively into the era of economy-wide decarbonization. It is essential that our climate legislation bind the relationships between climate science, government actions, and public engagement if it is to make a meaningful contribution to achieving net zero by 2050, and the end-of-century objective of the Paris Agreement.

In order for Bill C-12 to become a catalyzing force for change, target setting, plan rollouts, reporting obligations, monitoring procedures and the accountability framework must be significantly strengthened.

The issue of offsets should also be clearly addressed. In this respect, the David Suzuki Foundation supports the amendments recommended by Ecojustice and West Coast Environmental Law to the committee on Monday, which would help bring Bill C-12 up to the international standard of the Paris Agreement, in terms of accounting for anthropogenic emissions and removals in a manner that promotes environmental integrity, transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability and consistency.

I strongly encourage members to work to strengthen the bill in line with international best practice, and to approve it.

Thank you.

[Dr. Sabaa Khan, Director General, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, David Suzuki Foundation]

Thank you, Chair.

Dear members, I appreciate the invitation to appear before the committee today.

Climate change laws, such as Bill C-12, are a key governance tool in the quest to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. In order to be effective, not only does this legislation need to pass, it also needs to incorporate the necessary amendments that will enable it to meet its ultimate objective of achieving—

[Shannon Joseph, Vice-President, Government Relations and Indigenous Affairs, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you very much.

My name is Shannon Joseph, and I am the vice-president of government relations and indigenous affairs for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP.

CAPP represents the upstream oil and natural gas industry in Canada. We would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear and to be part of its study of Bill C-12.

This legislation and Canada’s work to fulfill its climate change commitments are important to all industries and all Canadians. CAPP and our member companies are strong supporters of and investors in environmental performance and innovation. We want to work with the federal government to achieve its climate change goals. That said, we would highlight for the committee that the pathway to net zero that Bill C-12 sets out is also intended to create economic opportunities for Canada.

We took note of the Prime Minister's comment, particularly on the occasion of the April 22, 2021, climate summit, that our climate change response can be “our greatest economic opportunity.” As members can appreciate, you manage what you measure, hence the inclusion in the bill of milestone climate change targets towards 2050 performance measurement requirements. If the path to net zero is to create growth, investment and jobs, then as well as environmental performance, we need economic targets, and economic performance metrics must be built into this legislation as well.

Beyond this, pathways to net zero are going to look different in the diverse regions of our country as we pursue this agenda. This fact must also be integrated into the bill in the ways that the strategies are developed and evaluated. This should done in close collaboration with provincial and territorial governments and their climate change strategies and policies. Canada is an exporting country, and oil and natural gas are our number one export.

We contribute more than $1.1 billion annually to Canada’s economy. We employ over half a million women and men in well-paying, skilled jobs coast to coast, including 63,000 jobs in Ontario and 18,000 in Quebec. Our national supply chain outside of Alberta includes over 2,700 different firms with annual purchases of over $4 billion. In addition, we purchase over $2.4 billion annually from indigenous-owned businesses representing about 11% of our procurement in the oil sands. We are one of the largest employers of indigenous Canadians and are committed to our important role in reconciliation.

I highlight these points because this industry is an important part of Canada’s economic and social fabric and we have played and want to continue to play a role both in both supporting Canadian prosperity and helping Canada and the world achieve their environmental objectives.

An important way we will play that role is through innovation. One of your other speakers talked about technologies being available, but many still need to be developed. According to a 2018 study by Global Advantage Consulting Group conducted for the Clean Resource Innovation Network, or CRIN, about 75% of all clean technology investment in Canada comes from the natural gas and oil industry.

Not only will our leadership in innovation help to reduce emissions here at home but through technology sharing and export, Canada can help reduce global emissions around the world. An example of this is carbon capture utilization and storage. The Weyburn-Midale project in Saskatchewan is one of the world's largest and longest running. We hope to see more of these projects.

Our emerging liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia also has a role to play in reducing global emissions and in generating internationally traded mitigation outcomes or carbon credits for Canada under the Paris Agreement.

China alone is adding one new large coal-fired power plant to its grid every two weeks. Coal-fired generation is also continuing to grow in India and southeast Asia, all with a focus on improving living standards for their citizens. If these facilities ran on Canadian natural gas, they would generate significantly lower air pollutants and significantly lower GHG emissions, as Ontario experienced when we switched power sources.

We cannot afford, either environmentally or economically, to take a narrow view of what climate change mitigation can look like in Canada. Bill C-12 should articulate the role that economic sectors and other stakeholders will play in the development of plans and in achieving targets. It should ensure that expertise in the technologies and opportunities available to different sectors and regions are brought to bear on Canada’s advisory panel and overall decision process.

We recommend a greater role for the Governor in Council, and in particular the Minister of Finance, in the development of targets, plans and supportive policies under the act, especially given their potential effects on the whole of Canada’s economy and society. We don't think it is appropriate for all of that to rest with one minister.

By working together, industry and government can accelerate innovation and develop technologies that reduce emissions while delivering responsibly produced energy to meet global energy demand. We hope our recommendations to the committee can support Canada in this process.

Thank you.

[Paul Fauteux, Attorney and Accredited Mediator and Arbitrator, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello and thanks to everyone for giving me this opportunity to contribute to your work.

I worked for the Government of Canada as a diplomat and senior official from 1980 to 2010. Among other things, I directed Environment Canada's Climate Change Bureau and led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

The bill you are currently studying is a step in the right direction, but it is clearly inadequate to address the imperatives of the climate emergency. I believe that many improvements need to be made. Given the time constraints, I will mention six.

First of all, the title of the bill betrays its lack of ambition. While the carbon neutrality objective for 2050 is legitimate, it should not be used to camouflage the failure of the current Canadian emissions trajectory. The Paris Agreement clearly establishes that achieving carbon neutrality by mid century will first require establishing a global ceiling for GHG emissions as soon as possible. Canadians expect their government to achieve these reduction levels quickly. This ambition should be reflected in the title, which of course assumes that the wording of the bill will be improved.

Second, the states that are leading in terms of combating climate change, like a number of our G7 and other partners, are including specific GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved in their laws. Their general goal is to make governments responsible for their climate action and to avoid repeated emissions reduction failures like Canada's.

There are lessons to be learned from Germany's recent experience. Bill C-12 should at the very least include, and thereby make mandatory, the 2030 emissions target announced by Prime Minister Harper in 2015 to reduce its GHG emissions by 30% from 2005 levels; or as an alternative, include the 40% to 45% target announced by Prime Minister Trudeau on April 22. The bill should also provide interim targets as of 2025, and every five years thereafter. A climate act like Bill C-12 without any targets is, in my view, useless.

Third, Bill C-12 does not establish a credible accountability mechanism. The only obligation imposed on the minister in this respect is to report on, or in other words evaluate, the minister's own work. The bill should instead provide that the government's action plan and measures be examined by an independent authority. This could be the environment commissioner, who could then be made an officer of Parliament to strengthen the commissioner's independence.

Fourth, Bill C-12 establishes an advisory body to provide the minister with advice; the minister establishes the advisory body, and may determine and amend its terms of reference at any time. The climate emergency and the rapid reduction in emissions required in Canada should instead call for experts to be consulted to provide advice on short-term goals, interim targets and the 2030 objective. The bill should therefore be amended to include the establishment of an independent scientific council consisting of university and research experts whose mandate would be to identify policies likely to promote the achievement of Canada's emissions reduction targets.

Fifth, the progress report mentioned in Bill C-12 is required every five years, even though emissions data are available every year. To make it possible to evaluate progress or the lack thereof at each intermediate phase, the bill should be amended to require an annual report.

Sixth, Bill C-12 does not state that measures should be evaluated as a function of their ability to enable Canada to comply with its commitments under the Paris Agreement. There is therefore nothing to make sure that the targets established by the department will do that. The bill should be amended to specify that the environment commissioner's role would be to determine whether the planned measures would enable Canada to meet its targets, and whether doing so would bring it into compliance with its Paris Agreement commitments.

To conclude, I would say that a Canadian climate act worthy of the name would have to ensure the population and the international community that Canada will at the very least be meeting its own commitments, even though they may not be adequate to achieve the Paris Agreement objective, which is to limit the temperature rise over pre-industrial levels to 1.5°C.

In its current form, Bill C-12 in no way ensures that Canada will meet its climate commitments. Compliance requires that the bill be amended to establish a mandatory target, in addition to interim targets every five years beginning in 2025, to establish accountability mechanisms and to bring in the required expertise.

Thank you for your attention.